초록

While there is a high degree of convergence in linguistics in the treatment of the progressive as an aspect, the English progressive is unusually wide in its range of uses. This paper highlights the distinction between aspectual and non-aspectual progressives. The primary function of the progressive is to present a situation as ongoing, and this strictly aspectual use of the progressive is referred to as ‘aspectual progressive’. On the other hand, the uses of the English progressive that are not, in a strict sense, aspectual is called ‘non-aspectual progressive’. There are at least three basic uses of non-aspectual progressives. The first is the so-called progressive futurate (e.g., John is leaving tomorrow). In English, the present progressive can be used to express future time reference. This use of the progressive is regarded as a non-aspectual one, on the grounds that its meaning cannot be accounted for in terms of ongoingness. The second use is the habitual progressive (e.g., She’s smoking a lot these days). Given that the habitual is an aspect, it is natural that the habitual progressive is not an aspectual progressive because one cannot view a situation in two different ways. In addition, ongoingness is not a defining property of the habitual progressive but is only a contingent or subsidiary property. The real essence of the habitual progressive is habituality. The third use of non-aspectual progressives is the experiential or interpretative progressive (e.g., You’re imagining things), whose main characteristic is the subjectivity of the speaker’s interpretation. The experiential or interpretative progressive does not serve a primarily aspectual function because the meaning of ongoingness has nothing to do with the content of the utterance.

키워드

aspectual progressive, non-aspectual progressive, progressive futurate, habitual progressive, experiential progressive, interpretative progressive

I. Introductionopen

While there is a high degree of convergence in linguistics in the treatment of the progressive as an aspect, the English progressive is unusually wide in its range of uses. It is, therefore, illuminating to distinguish ‘aspectual’ progressives, which involve a universal or near-universal notion of aspect, from ‘non-aspectual’ progressives, which reflect a parochial feature of English. Of these two, the main focus of the present paper is on the latter.

The motivation of this paper stems from the fact that in some ESL/EFL (English as a second/foreign language) grammar books, the progressive has been mistakenly described as a tense, as summarized in Table 1. The cause of this misconstruction is partly due to a lack of understanding of the binary distinction between aspectual and non-aspectual progressives. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the contrast between aspectual and non-aspectual progressives and identify some of the core properties that distinguish one from the other. Section II lays out the relevant background of this study. Section III discusses briefly the canonical meaning of the progressive aspect along with the fundamental differences between aspect and Aktionsart. Sections IV through VI examine some representative examples of non-aspectual progressives: the progressive futurate, the habitual progressive, and the experiential or interpretative progressive.

Table 1. Examples of ESL/EFL Grammar Books Describing the Progressive as a Tense

II. Backgroundopen

This paper accepts S. Pit Corder’s view of applied linguistics, namely as mediator between linguistics and language teaching:1

(1) a. Applied linguistics is a set of related activities or techniques mediating between the various theoretical accounts of human language on the one hand and the practical activities of language teaching on the other. (Corder 1975: 4-5)

b. The starting point of every application of linguistics to any of the practical tasks is a description of the language or languages involved in the task. . . . In the case of language teaching it is true to say that we cannot teach systematically what we cannot describe. (Corder 1975: 5)

Following Corder (1973: 10-11), language teaching is interpreted here “in the very broadest sense, to include all the planning and decision-making which takes place outside the classroom.”2 Corder’s (1973) broad notion of language teaching is also very much in the same spirit as the definition of pedagogic (or pedagogical) grammar adopted by Davies (1999: 24):

A pedagogic (or pedagogical) grammar we can define as a grammatical description of a language which is intended for pedagogical purposes, such as language teaching [in the narrow sense, SAL], syllabus design, or the preparation of teaching materials. (Davies 1999: 24)

The ultimate goal of this study is bridging the gap between theoretical linguistics and descriptive and pedagogical linguistic activities. The legacy of crossing boundaries in these two seemingly disparate areas can be traced back to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as noted by Pullum (2002):

All the great linguists and phoneticians of the 19th and early 20th centuries (Sweet, Whitney, Sapir, Jespersen, Bloomfield, Jones, . . .) seem to have taken it for granted that linguistics was, and ought to be, a companion to the making of dictionaries and the teaching of languages. (Pullum 2002)

Pullum (2002) further deplores the fact that by the end of the twentieth century this type of alliance had been dissolved, and ascribes the growing gulf between theoretical linguistics and descriptive and pedagogical linguistic activities to “over-radical anti-prescriptivism[,] . . . contempt for applied fields[, and] failure to produce comprehensive descriptions,” among other things.

Having sympathy with this point of view, this paper aims to narrow the existing gap between theoretical linguistics and descriptive and pedagogical linguistic activities. Given this background, this study will be of relevance for both linguists and English language professionals such as ESL/EFL textbook writers or English language teachers, who need a comprehensive understanding of English progressive constructions.

1 S. Pit Corder was “an important innovator in the field” of applied linguistics, and was “largely responsible for the development in the UK of specialised courses in applied linguistics” (Davies 1999: 6). Applied linguistics is a wideranging field and people interpret the term ‘applied linguistics’ differently. In fact, it has been “the subject of much argument about definition,” as Brumfit (1988: 3), among others, notes.

2 This paper does not attend to classroom teaching. For some classroom activities concerning the English progressive, see Richards (1981) and references cited therein.

III. Aspectual versus Non-aspectual Progressivesopen

For a long time there was no consensus among linguists with respect to the general grammatical status of the progressive in English. Zandvoort (1962), for example, argues that the English progressive is not an aspect at all, since it differs in many respects from the Russian imperfective. It is also interesting to note that Jespersen (1924: 277, 1931: 164, 1933: 263) refers to the progressive as the ‘expanded tense,’ whereas Sweet (1892: 103) employs the name ‘definite tense’ to describe the progressive. However, the usual approach today is to treat the English progressive as aspect.

The study of aspect in English has given rise to many controversial issues of which the more tangled are the term ‘aspect’ itself and its companion term ‘Aktionsart.’3 As Tobin (1993: 4) notes, “[a]spect has almost as many definitions as there are linguists who have attempted to deal with it, particularly those linguists trying to capture the complex subtleties of ‘aspect in English.’” Furthermore, although the differentiation of aspect and Aktionsart is a useful one of long-standing relevance (Brinton 1988: 3), more often than not, it is ignored or blurred and some scholars such as Verkuyl (1972, 1989, 1993) have argued against distinguishing the two.

The distinction between aspect and Aktionsart has been approached from many different directions, as shown in Table 2 (see Brinton 1988: 3, among others).

Table 2. Aspect versus Aktionsart

The traditional view is that aspect is grammatical while Aktionsart is lexical in English (Tobin 1993: 7).4 Aspect is grammatical because by and large, it is expressed by “verbal inflectional morphology and periphrases” (Brinton 1988: 3). In contrast, Aktionsart is generally expressed by “the lexical meaning of verbs and verbal derivational morphology” (Brinton 1988: 3). The dichotomy between aspect and Aktionsart in terms of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ can be explained in the following way. Aspect is subjective in that the speaker/writer chooses a particular viewpoint or perspective on a situation. Aktionsart, on the other hand, concerns the more or less objectively given type of situation.5 Smith (1983, 1997), among others, refers to the former as ‘viewpoint aspect’ and the latter as ‘situation aspect’. To summarize, aspect is “a matter of the speaker’s viewpoint or perspective on a situation,” whereas Aktionsart is “the character of the situation named by a verb” (Brinton 1988: 3).

With this background, let us now turn to the question of what counts as the progressive aspect.6 Binnick (1991: 281-90) and Kabakčiev (2000: 168-75) discuss the difficulty embedded in attempts at a definition of the progressive involving a single basic meaning. Nonetheless, the following extracts show that a generally agreed-upon meaning assignable to the progressive is ‘ongoingness’:

(2) a. As the name suggests, the progressive presents the situation as being ‘in progress’. (Huddleston 1984: 153)

b. As its name suggests, the progressive aspect indicates a happening ‘in progress’ at a given time. (Quirk et al. 1985: 197)

c. [P]rogressive aspect views a situation as ongoing or developing and as being continuous and incomplete in the time frame considered. (Brinton 1987: 207, 1988: 39-40)

d. The progressive aspect designates an event or state of affairs which is in progress, or continuing, at the time indicated by the rest of the verb phrase. (Biber et al. 1999: 460)

e. A special case of imperfectivity . . . is that where a dynamic situation is presented as ongoing, in progress: this we refer to as progressive aspectuality, and since it is the basic function of the be + gerund-participle construction to express it, this construction is called progressive aspect.7 (Huddleston 2002: 124)

In a nutshell, the primary function of the progressive is to present a situation as ongoing. We will refer to this strictly aspectual use of the progressive as ‘aspectual progressive.’

There are, however, other cases of the progressive in which the meaning of ongoingness (i.e., the ‘process’ element of meaning) is lacking, or to put it less categorically, not salient, as will be argued at some length in sections IV - VI below. The examples in (3) offer just a glimpse into the multiplicity of uses that English progressive constructions have. Compare (3b-c) with (3a), which is the aspectual progressive or the progressive proper.8

(3) a. At the moment, we’re bombing a French mission. [PROCESS]

b. We’re bombing a French mission tomorrow. [FUTURATE]

c. Nowadays we’re bombing French missions. [HABITUAL]

(Sag 1973: 85)

The uses of the English progressive that are not, in a strict sense, aspectual will be called ‘non-aspectual progressive.’9 In the following sections, we will examine some of the non-aspectual progressives in English. We begin with uses such as (3b) and (3c) in turn and then consider a nonaspectual use that is not given in (3).

3 The term ‘aspect’ corresponds to the Russian word vid ‘view’ (Brinton 1988: 2, Binnick 1991: 136). Instead of the term ‘Aktionsart,’ some linguists prefer to use terms such as ‘eventuality (type)’ (Bach 1981: 69, Filip 1999: 15) or ‘actionality’ (Bertinetto 1994: 392, 415).

4 See, however, Kreidler (1998: 198), who claims that aspect is both grammatical and lexical.

5 One might argue that Aktionsart also concerns the addition of a subjective element. This line of thinking is summarized in the following passage: In a certain sense, [A]ktionsart is as ‘subjective’ as aspect. That is, in order to name a situation, a speaker must conceptualize that situation in a particular way. Different speakers may choose to conceptualize the same situation differently. (Brinton 1988: 247) One piece of evidence in support of the subjective nature of Aktionsart comes from Dahl (1981: 83). Seeing John sitting at his desk, we may answer the question What is he doing? by using an activity, as in (i) or an accomplishment, as in (ii). (i) He is writing. (ii) He is writing a letter. The same point is made by Galton (1984: 71). One may describe one and the same situation as a state or an activity. For example, “Jane is in the swimming-pool reports a state while Jane is swimming reports an activity” (Galton 1984: 71). Yet as Brinton (1988: 247) freely concedes, “this is a problem outside of the linguistic domain, strictly speaking.”

6 The progressive aspect is sometimes called the ‘durative’ or ‘continuous’ aspect (Quirk et al. 1985: 197).

7 Throughout this paper, the term ‘progressive aspect’ will be reserved for aspectual progressives only, while ‘progressive construction’ (be + V-ing) will be applied to both aspectual and non-aspectual progressives. What Huddleston (2002) calls ‘progressive aspectuality’ is equivalent to ‘progressive aspect’ in our terms. The term ‘progressive aspect’ in Huddleston’s (2002) sense corresponds to ‘progressive construction’ in our terms (seeHuddleston 2002: 162-163).

8 Not only the examples in (3) but also the corresponding descriptions in the brackets (including the word ‘futurate’) are repeated from Sag (1973: 85). For more details on the word ‘futurate,’ see footnote 10.

9 Since the aspectual/non-aspectual distinction largely depends on how one defines the progressive aspect, there is, naturally, room for disagreement on the classification of a particular use as non-aspectual.

IV. The Progressive Futurate10open

As the examples in (4) illustrate, one of the striking properties of English is that the present progressive as well as the simple present can be used to express future time reference.

(4) a. John leaves tomorrow.

b. John is leaving tomorrow. (Huddleston 1984: 156)

In this respect, English differs from other languages with a grammatical progressive such as Spanish. For example, Spanish does not permit (5b), otherwise parallel to (5a), even if it allows a future use of the simple present.11

(5) a. I’m leaving in five minutes.

b. *Me estoy yendo [e]n cinco minutos.

(Goldsmith and Woisetschlaeger 1982: 88)

This use of the progressive is regarded as a non-aspectual one (Huddleston 2002: 171, among others), on the grounds that its meaning cannot be accounted for in terms of ongoingness. One might say that in some regards, there is a sense of ongoingness by arguing that the progressive futurate refers to matters that have already been settled or decided at the time of the utterance. Yet, the event of leaving described in (4b) or (5a) is not ‘in progress’ in a strict sense.

Although in (4), it is difficult to pin down the difference in meaning between the non-progressive and the progressive (Huddleston 1984: 156), in some other cases, the contrast between the two is noticeable. For example, in (6b) tomorrow is more natural than in five years, whereas no such distinction is drawn in (6a).

(6) a. It expires tomorrow/in five years.

b. It’s expiring tomorrow/in five years. (Huddleston 2002: 171)

In sum, “the progressive tends to be used for the relatively near future” (Huddleston 2002: 171).

Another restriction imposed on “the ‘futurate’ use” (Goldsmith and Woisetschlaeger 1982: 88) of the progressive is that it is generally felicitous in cases where human agency or intention is involved (Leech 1987: 64, Huddleston 2002: 171). Accordingly, the anomaly of (7b) is attributed to the fact that the subject is inanimate, unlike the human subject in (8).12

(7) a. The sun rises at 5.15 tomorrow.

b. *The sun is rising at 5.15 tomorrow. (Huddleston 1984: 157)

(8) John is rising at 5 o’clock tomorrow. (Leech 1987: 64)

Finally, it is worth digressing to consider progressive constructions that are related to the case at hand but cannot be treated under the heading ‘progressive futurate.’ As the examples in (9) indicate, the aspectual/nonaspectual distinction is found not only in present progressives but also in ‘future progressives’ (will + be + V-ing).

(9) a. When we get there, they’ll probably still be having lunch. [aspectual]

b. Will you be going to the shops this afternoon? [non-spectual]

c. When the meeting ends we’ll be flying to Bonn. [ambiguous]

(Huddleston 2002: 171)

Whereas (9a) means that “the lunch will be still in progress at the time of our arrival,” this sort of interpretation is not possible in (9b), where the progressive just indicates that “the matter has already been settled rather than being subject to decision now” (Huddleston 2002: 172).13 What is significant about these patterns is that some progressives may be ambiguous between an aspectual reading and a non-aspectual reading. On the aspectual reading, (9c) is construed as saying that “we will already be flying to Bonn when the meeting ends” (Huddleston 2002: 172). On the non-aspectual reading, “the when adjunct says when we will leave” (Huddleston 2002: 172). The latter interpretation surely cannot be subsumed under the meaning of ongoingness.

10 The term ‘progressive futurate’ is taken from Huddleston (2002: 171). Unlike Huddleston (2002), Dowty (1979: 154) employs the name ‘futurate progressive’. As Dowty (1979: 188) points out, the futurate progressive or the progressive futurate (John is leaving town tomorrow) must not be confused with the ‘future progressive’ (John will be leaving town tomorrow).

11 Goldsmith and Woisetschlaeger (1982: 88) note that Spanish, not English, is the unmarked case. As the examples in (i)indicate, in Spanish, the simple present can be used to express future time reference. (i) a. Me voy dentro de cinco minutes. I leave in five minutes ‘I leave in five minutes.’ b. John se va mañana. leaves tomorrow ‘John leaves tomorrow.’ We wish to thank Casilda García de la Maza for help with Spanish.

12 The judgement in (7b) is not repeated from Huddleston (1984: 157). Rather, it is taken from Leech (1987: 64) and Dowty (1979: 161), who assign an asterisk to analogous sentences, as in (i). (i) a. *The sun is rising at 5 o’clock tomorrow. (Leech 1987: 64) b. *The sun is setting tomorrow at 6:37. (Dowty 1979: 161) Huddleston (1984: 157) just remarks that (7b) is not normal. In Huddleston (2002: 171), the symbol ‘#’ (meaning ‘semantically or pragmatically anomalous’) is assigned to a sentence akin to (7b), as in (ii). (ii) #The sun is setting at five tomorrow. (Huddleston 2002: 171)

13 The salient interpretation of the non-progressive counterpart of (9b), Will you go to the shops this afternoon?, is as “a request to you to go to the shops” (Huddleston 2002: 172).

V. The Habitual Progressiveopen

In English, the present progressive may express not only futurity but also habituality. For illustration, consider (3), repeated below as (10).

(10) a. At the moment, we’re bombing a French mission. [PROCESS]

b. We’re bombing a French mission tomorrow. [FUTURATE]

c. Nowadays we’re bombing French missions. [HABITUAL]

(Sag 1973: 85)

Given that habits are generally expressed in English by the simple present, as the examples in (11) show, a natural question arises as to whether there is any difference between the habitual progressive and its non-progressive counterpart.

(11) a. I buy my shirts at Harrods. (Leech 1987: 9)

b. She visits Europe frequently. (Brinton 1987: 200)

c. John often/usually sings. (Bertinetto 1994: 411)

There are at least two distinctive features of the habitual progressive. First, habitual progressives with adverbs such as always, continually, constantly, and forever are recognized as a kind of hyperbole (Huddleston 1984: 156, Brinton 1987: 208:, Leech 1987: 34, among others). Let us consider the following minimal pairs:

(12) a. She always buys far more vegetables than they can possibly eat.

b. She’s always buying far more vegetables than they can possibly eat.

(Comrie 1976: 37)

(13) a. They always play chess.

b. They are always playing chess.

(Huddleston 1984: 156)

(14) a. I know a man who always gives his wife expensive presents.

b. I know a man who’s always giving his wife expensive presents.

(Leech 1987: 33)

According to Leech (1987: 34), (14a) is understood as meaning (15a), while (14b) has the rough interpretation in (15b).

(15) a. ‘I know a man who gives his wife an expensive present on every occasion (i.e., on every occasion when husbands normally give wives presents).’

b. ‘There is never a time at which this man is not giving his wife expensive presents.’ (Leech 1987: 34)

In sum, always in the habitual progressive does not mean ‘on every occasion.’ Rather, it is interpreted as a near-equivalent of continually (Leech 1987:33, Huddleston 1984: 156).

Notice also that habitual progressives of this sort have an “emotional colouring” (Jespersen 1931: 180-181), as remarked by several authors.14 For example, Huddleston (1984: 156) notes that unlike the non-progressive (13a), the progressive (13b) carries an emotive element in that the speaker finds their behavior somewhat tiresome. The implicatures of these patterns are most cogently stated by Leech (1987).

[T]heir tone is often one of irritation or amused disparagement. Anyone who used a sentence about a man who is always giving people lifts would tend to have a critical attitude towards the man, even though his habit of giving lifts might generally be considered laudable by other people.

(Leech 1987: 34)

A second sort of characteristic is that habits in the progressive may refer to temporary habits, or those holding for a limited period, as the following examples indicate:

(16) a. We’re going to the opera a lot these days. (Comrie 1976: 37)

b. She’s smoking a lot these days. (Freed 1979: 14-15)

c. I’m taking dancing lessons this winter. (Leech 1987: 32)

Even when there is no adverbial like these days, this winter, and so on, as in (17), the progressive still suggests a shorter period than its non-progressive counterpart (Leech 1987: 32).

(17) a. I take dancing lessons.

b. I’m taking dancing lessons. (Leech 1987: 32)

This contrast is also exemplified by the near-minimal pair in (18).

(18) a. She walks to work. (Leech 1987: 9)

b. Mr. Robinson is cycling to work until his car is repaired.

(Leech 1987: 32)

With regard to (18b), it is perhaps worth mentioning that Huddleston (2002: 167) classifies a closely similar sentence such as (19) under the heading ‘temporary state.’15

(19) She is cycling to work this week. (Huddleston 2002: 167)

However, this seems to be a misconceived strategy, given that states and habits should not be lumped together. As Huddleston (2002: 167) notes, while the simple present version She cycles to work refers to her regular mode of travel to work, its progressive counterpart (19) means (20), which should be considered as a temporary habit, as in Leech (1987: 32).

(20) ‘Perhaps she normally goes by car, but this week it is off the road, so she is going by bicycle.’ (Huddleston 2002: 167)

Admittedly, there is a tendency to equate habits with states, as evinced by Kearns’s (1991: 110) statement that “habituals are plausibly classed as a kind of stative.”16 Yet Brinton (1987) and Bertinetto (1994) argue convincingly that there are big discrepancies between the two.

In this connection, it must be emphasized that the habitual is an aspect category rather than an Aktionsart category (Comrie 1976, Brinton 1987, 1988, Bertinetto 1994). In Comrie (1976: 25), for example, the habitual is analyzed as a subcategory of the imperfective aspect, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Comrie’s (1976: 25) Classification of Aspectual Oppositions

Brinton (1987: 209-10), on the other hand, argues that the habitual is probably a separate aspect category with a meaning different from that of the imperfective. Whereas the imperfective aspect views a situation as incomplete, the habitual aspect views a situation “as repeated on different occasions, as distributed over a period of time” (Brinton 1988: 53). Brinton’s (1988: 53) aspect model for English is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Brinton’s (1988) Aspect Model for English

For the purposes of this study, it is not necessary to take a position about whether the habitual should be considered to be a subcategory of the imperfective or not. Suffice it to say that the habitual is an aspect, or way of viewing a situation. Given that the habitual is an aspect, it is natural that the habitual progressive is not an aspectual progressive because one cannot view a situation in two different ways.

Presumably one might refute this claim by saying that in the habitual progressive, “habits, which are not continuous, are represented as if continuous” (Brinton 1987: 209) and therefore it involves a sense of ongoingness. Yet the key point is that ongoingness is not a defining property of the habitual progressive but is only a contingent or subsidiary property. Again, the real essence of the habitual progressive is habituality. Hence there is a rationale for not treating the habitual progressive as a type of aspectual progressives.

Turning to the distributional constraints on the habitual progressive, there is not much discussion on this issue. Sag (1973: 85-87) proposes the so-called “progressive squish” arguing that the progressive futurate shows a more restricted distribution than the aspectual progressive (‘process progressive,’ in his terms), which in turn has tighter restrictions than the habitual progressive. We reserve this topic for future research.

14 See the references cited in Brinton (1988: 41)

15 Consequently, Huddleston (2002) treats (19) as an aspectual progressive. Indeed, in discussing non-aspectual uses of the progressive, Huddleston (2002: 171-72) does not mention progressives of this sort.

16 Similar remarks are made by Vendler (1957/1967: 108), who notes that “[h]abits (in a broader sense including occupations, dispositions, abilities, and so forth) are also states in our sense.” Others use expressions such as ‘habitual state’ (Moens and Steedman 1988: 18) or ‘habitual stative’ (Smith 1997: 18, 50).

VI. The Experiential or Interpretative Progressiveopen

Wright (1995: 156) employs the term ‘experiential progressive’ to refer to the progressive that focuses on “an experience, perception, observation from inside the speaker’s consciousness” rather than on an event in time. Such uses of the progressive have been described by Ljung (1980) as the ‘interpretative progressive.’17 Consider the following examples:

(21) a. You’re telling me you don’t love me anymore. (Wright 1995: 156)

b. You’re imagining things. (Ljung 1980: 77, Wright 1995: 156)

The progressives in (21) “signpost the speaker’s interpretation or evaluation of some state of affairs” and hence are subjectively construed (Wright 1995: 156). For example, in (21a), the speaker concludes from what his interlocutor has said that she does not love him anymore. The subjectivity of the speaker’s interpretation is quite obvious on the grounds that the interlocutor may explicitly cancel the implicature inferred by the speaker. Likewise, (21b) is subjective in the sense that the speaker has no access to the interlocutor’s mental processes.

While the experiential or interpretative progressive has been discussed in the linguistics literature, including Ljung (1980), Wright (1994, 1995), Smith (2002), and Killie (2004), to the best of our knowledge, it has not been covered in ESL/EFL grammar books. To understand the experiential or interpretative progressive better, let us consider examples like (21) from a corpus. Both (22) and (23) are taken from the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA).18

(22) Prince Charming becomes frustrated, he turns Pinocchio’s head towards him.

PRINCE CHARMING

You! You can’t lie. So tell me

puppet... Where is Shrek?!

Pinocchio thinks.

PINOCCHIO

(nervous)

Well, I don’t know where he’s not.

Prince Charming gets in Pinocchio’s face.

You’re telling me you don’t know

where Shrek is?

Pinocchio is still a little nervous.

It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume

that I couldn’t exactly not say

that is or isn’t almost partially

incorrect.

Pinocchio thinks he has the upper hand.

So you do know where he is!

On the contrary, I’m possibly more

or less, not definitely rejecting

the idea, that in no way, with any

amount of uncertainty that...

Stop it.

PINOCCHIO (CONT’D)

. . . I undeniably do or do not know

where he shouldn’t probably be.

(COCA; FIC, 2007)

(23) Thus far, however, men found her unattractive and annoyingly intellectual. Mr. Higgins, at least, seemed to find her interesting. This was a first for Lucy, and she didn’t want to let the opportunity slip away. “You’re looking at me like a cat in the creamery,” he whispered. “Why is that?” She snapped her head around and faced front, appalled by her own intoxicating fantasy. “You’re imagining things, sir. You do not know me at all.” The lecture started up again, a boring recitation about the ancient founders— male, of course— of the Christian faith. She tilted her chin up and fixed an expression of tolerant interest on her face. (COCA; FIC, 2010)

In (22)-(23), the subjective function or meaning of the progressive is clear because the progressive construction provides an interpretation of the speaker’s perspective of the situation.

Notice that the experiential or interpretative progressive does not serve a primarily aspectual function. The meaning of ongoingness does “not belong to the content of the utterance but to the speaker’s progressively developing belief state” (Ziegeler 1999: 65). Furthermore, as Ljung (1980: 77) rightly points out, we would hardly answer (24) by saying (25), although we would answer it with non-interpretative progressives such as (26).19

(24) What’s John doing just now?

(25) He’s imagining things.

(26) He’s reading the paper.

17 Alternative terms for the experiential or interpretative progressive include ‘emotive,’ ‘vivid,’ and ‘phenomenal’ progressive (Wright 1995: 156).

18 The COCA is freely accessible online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/. In (22)-(23), more detailed source information is provided in parentheses after the semicolon. The numbers refer to the date and ‘FIC’ is an abbreviation of fiction. The title of (22) is Shrek the Third and (22) is drawn from ‘Final Screening Script 53,’ which is also found at http://www.joblo.com/scripts/script_shrekthethird.pdf.

19 The examples in (24)-(26) are all drawn from Ljung (1980: 77). Admittedly, What’s John doing at the moment? sounds better than (24).

VII. Summary and Conclusionopen

“To mistakenly describe the progressive as a tense” (Richards 1981: 399), as in some ESL/EFL grammar books, such as Azar (2002: 3), leads to a misunderstanding of progressive constructions in English. In order to encompass the fact that the English progressive is unusually wide in its range of uses, it is instructive to make a distinction between aspectual and non-aspectual progressives. The primary function of the progressive is to present a situation as ongoing, and this strictly aspectual use of the progressive is referred to as ‘aspectual progressive.’ On the other hand, the uses of the English progressive that are not, in a strict sense, aspectual is called ‘non-aspectual progressive.’20 In this paper, the term ‘progressive aspect’ is reserved for aspectual progressives only, while ‘progressive construction (be + V-ing) is applied to both aspectual and non-aspectual progressives.

One can distinguish at least three basic uses of non-aspectual progressives. The first is the so-called progressive futurate (e.g., John is leaving tomorrow). In English, the present progressive can be used to express future time reference. This use of the progressive is regarded as a nonaspectual one, on the grounds that its meaning cannot be accounted for in terms of ongoingness. The second use is the habitual progressive (e.g., She’s smoking a lot these days). Given that the habitual is an aspect, it is natural that the habitual progressive is not an aspectual progressive because one cannot view a situation in two different ways. In addition, ongoingness is not a defining property of the habitual progressive but is only a contingent or subsidiary property. The real essence of the habitual progressive is habituality. The third use of non-aspectual progressives is the experiential or interpretative progressive (e.g., You’re imagining things), whose main characteristic is the subjectivity of the speaker’s interpretation. The experiential or interpretative progressive does not serve a primarily aspectual function because the meaning of ongoingness has nothing to do with the content of the utterance.

It is hoped that the findings from the present study are relevant for ESL/EFL textbook writers as well as linguists. The following passage suggests that in Biber et al. (1999), the term ‘progressive aspect’ is used in a broader sense, encompassing both the ‘aspectual progressive’ and the ‘progressive futurate’ in our terms.

The progressive aspect is used to describe activities or events that are in progress at a particular time, usually for a limited duration. The present progressive aspect describes events that are currently in progress or are about to take place in the near future [emphasis added].

(Biber et al. 1999: 470)

However, as has been stressed in the preceding discussion, aspectual progressives should be distinguished from non-aspectual progressives.

20 An advantage of the classification adopted in this paper is that the distributional constraints on English progressives (namely, the claim that state verbs and achievement verbs do not allow the progressive) applies to aspectual progressives only. Space considerations preclude a detailed discussion on the distribution of English aspectual progressives. For details, see Lee (2004).

참고문헌(55)open

  1. [단행본]

    Alexander, L. G..

    1988

    Longman English Grammar

    Longman

  2. [단행본]

    Azar, Betty S..

    2002

    Understanding and Using English Grammar

    Longman

    3rd ed.

  3. [단행본]

    Bach, Emmon.

    1981

    “On Time, Tense, and Aspect: An Essay in English Metaphysics.” Radical Pragmatics. Ed. Peter Cole

    63

    Academic Press

  4. [참고문헌]

    Bertinetto, Pier M..

    (1994)

    “Statives, Progressives, and Habituals: Analogies and Differences.”

    Linguistics

    32 : 391 - 423

    10.1515/ling.1994.32.3.391

    CrossRef

  5. [단행본]

    Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward.

    1999

    Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English

    Longman

  6. [단행본]

    Binnick, Robert I..

    1991

    Time and the Verb: A Guide to Tense and Aspect

    Oxford UP

  7. [참고문헌]

    Brinton, Laurel J..

    (1987)

    “The Aspectual Nature of States and Habits.”

    Folia Linguistica

    21 : 195 - 214

    10.1515/flin.1987.21.2-4.195

    CrossRef

  8. [단행본]

    Brinton, Laurel J..

    1988

    The Development of English Aspectual Systems: Aspectualizers and Post-Verbal Particles

    Cambridge UP

  9. [참고문헌]

    Brumfit, Christopher..

    (1988)

    “Applied Linguistics and Communicative Language Teaching.”

    Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

    8 : 3 - 13

    10.1017/S0267190500000982

    CrossRef

  10. [단행본]

    Carter, Ronald, Hughes, Rebecca, McCarthy, Michael.

    2000

    Exploring Grammar in Context: Upper-Intermediate and Advanced

    Cambridge UP

  11. [단행본]

    Comrie, Bernard.

    1976

    Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems

    Cambridge UP

  12. [단행본]

    Corder, S. Pit.

    1973

    Introducing Applied Linguistics

    Penguin

  13. [단행본]

    Corder, S. Pit.

    1975

    “Applied Linguistics and Language Teaching.” Papers in Applied Linguistics (The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics 2). Eds. J. P. B. Allen and S. Pit Corder

    1

    Oxford UP

  14. [단행본]

    Dahl, Östen..

    1981

    “On the Definition of the Telic-Atelic (Bounded-Nonbounded) Distinction.” Tense and Aspect (Syntax and Semantics 14 ). Eds. Philip J. Tedeschi and Annie Zaenen

    79

    Academic Press

  15. [단행본]

    Davies, Alan.

    1999

    An Introduction to Applied Linguistics: From Practice to Theory

    Edinburgh UP

  16. [단행본]

    Dowty, David R..

    1979

    Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ

    Reidel

  17. [단행본]

    Eastwood, John.

    2005

    Oxford Learner’s Grammar: Grammar Finder

    Oxford UP

  18. [단행본]

    Filip, Hana.

    1999

    Aspect, Eventuality Types and Nominal Reference

    Garland

  19. [단행본]

    Freed, Alice F..

    1979

    The Semantics of English Aspectual Complementation

    Reidel

  20. [단행본]

    Galton, Antony.

    1984

    The Logic of Aspect: An Axiomatic Approach

    Clarendon Press

  21. [참고문헌]

    Goldsmith, John, Woisetschlaeger, Erich.

    (1982)

    “The Logic of the English Progressive.”

    Linguistic Inquiry

    13 : 79 - 89

  22. [단행본]

    Hashemi, Louise, Thomas, Barbara.

    2003

    Grammar for English Exams

    Cambridge UP

  23. [단행본]

    Hewings, Martin.

    2005

    Advanced Grammar in Use

    Cambridge UP

    2nd ed.

  24. [단행본]

    Huddleston, Rodney.

    1984

    Introduction to the Grammar of English

    Cambridge UP

  25. [단행본]

    Huddleston, Rodney.

    2002

    “The Verb.” The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum

    71

    Cambridge UP

  26. [단행본]

    Jespersen, Otto.

    1924

    The Philosophy of Grammar

    George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

  27. [단행본]

    Jespersen, Otto.

    1931

    A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part IV: Syntax (Third Volume)

    Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung

  28. [단행본]

    Jespersen, Otto.

    1933

    Essentials of English Grammar

    George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

  29. [단행본]

    Kabakčiev, Krasimir.

    2000

    Aspect in English: A “Common-Sense” View of the Interplay between Verbal and Nominal Referents

    Kluwer Academic Publishers

  30. [학위논문]

    Kearns, Katherine S..

    “The Semantics of the English Progressive.”

    1991

    MIT / Diss.

  31. [참고문헌]

    Killie, Kristin..

    (2004)

    “Subjectivity and the English Progressive.”

    English Language and Linguistics

    8 : 25 - 46

    10.1017/S1360674304001236

    CrossRef

  32. [단행본]

    Kreidler, Charles W..

    1998

    Introducing English Semantics

    Routledge

  33. [단행본]

    Lee, Seung-Ah.

    2004

    “Progressives and Aspectual Verb Constructions in English.”

    Diss. U of Cambridge

  34. [단행본]

    Leech, Geoffrey N..

    1987

    Meaning and the English Verb

    Longman

    2nd ed.

  35. [단행본]

    Ljung, Magnus.

    1980

    Reflections on the English Progressive (Gothenburg Studies in English 46)

    Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis

  36. [참고문헌]

    Moens, Marc, Steedman, Mark.

    (1988)

    “Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference.”

    Computational Linguistics

    14 : 15 - 28

  37. [단행본]

    Pullum, Geoffrey K..

    2002

    “Theoretical Linguistics and Practical Concerns: Reflections on the Divorce.” Abstract for the Talk Given at the Department of Language and Linguistics

    University of Essex

  38. [단행본]

    Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, Svartvik, Jan.

    1985

    A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language

    Longman

  39. [참고문헌]

    Richards, Jack C..

    (1981)

    “Introducing the Progressive.”

    TESOL Quarterly

    15 : 391 - 402

    10.2307/3586480

    CrossRef

  40. [단행본]

    Sag, Ivan A..

    1973

    “On the State of Progress on Progressives and Statives.” New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English. Ed. Charles-James N. Bailey and Roger W. Shuy

    83

    Georgetown UP

  41. [참고문헌]

    Smith, Carlota S..

    (1983)

    “A Theory of Aspectual Choice.”

    Language

    59 : 479 - 501

    10.2307/413899

    CrossRef

  42. [단행본]

    Smith, Carlota S..

    1997

    The Parameter of Aspect

    Kluwer Academic Publishers

    2nd ed.

  43. [단행본]

    Smith, Nicholas.

    2002

    “Ever Moving on? The Progressive in Recent British English.” New Frontiers of Corpus Research (Language and Computers: Studies in Practical Linguistics 36). Eds. Pam Peters, Peter Collins, and Adam Smith

    317

    Rodopi

  44. [단행본]

    Sweet, Henry.

    1892

    A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part I: Introduction, Phonology, and Accidence

    Clarendon Press

  45. [단행본]

    Tobin, Yishai.

    1993

    Aspect in the English Verb: Process and Result in Language

    Longman

  46. [단행본]

    Vendler, Zeno.

    1967

    “Verbs and Times.” The Philosophical Review 66 (1957): 143-60. Revised in Zeno Vendler, Linguistics in Philosophy

    97

    Cornell UP

  47. [단행본]

    Verkuyl, Henk J..

    1972

    On the Compositional Nature of the Aspects

    Reidel

  48. [참고문헌]

    Verkuyl, Henk J..

    (1989)

    “Aspectual Classes and Aspectual Composition.”

    Linguistics and Philosophy

    12 : 39 - 94

    10.1007/BF00627398

    CrossRef

  49. [단행본]

    Verkuyl, Henk J..

    1993

    A Theory of Aspectuality: The Interaction between Temporal and Atemporal Structure

    Cambridge UP

  50. [단행본]

    Werner, Patricia K., Nelson, John P..

    2007

    Mosaic 2 Grammar

    McGraw-Hill

  51. [단행본]

    Wright, Susan.

    1994

    “The Mystery of the Modal Progressive.” Studies in Early Modern English. Ed. Dieter Kastovsky

    467

    Mouton de Gruyter

  52. [단행본]

    Wright, Susan.

    1995

    “Subjectivity and Experiential Syntax.” Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Ed. Dieter Stein and Susan Wright

    151

    Cambridge UP

  53. [단행본]

    Yule, George.

    2006

    Oxford Practice Grammar: Advanced

    Oxford UP

  54. [참고문헌]

    Zandvoort, R. W..

    (1962)

    “Is ‘Aspect’ an English Verbal Category?”

    Gothenburg Studies in English

    14 : 1 - 20

  55. [참고문헌]

    Ziegeler, Debra..

    (1999)

    “Agentivity and the History of the English Progressive.”

    Transactions of the Philological Society

    97 : 51 - 101

    10.1111/1467-968X.00045

    CrossRef